One more funny thing I've noticed as I've been fussing with Stu's calculator…

My #55 Howatt Hunter is cut past center, which allows me to use 10 to 15 pounds heavier spine than I can use with the #55 RER Vortex that I recently got on a trade.

Now, my Hunter is pre-FF, but that's no big deal, because when I start plugging in values I see that despite increasing the spine requirement, the actual output from moving to a FF string only adds about 12 grains and a few feet per second. The problem is that you can't increase spine by #5 without requiring a heavier arrow… At least not if you prefer to shoot wood or aluminum.

But the longbows… Not being cut past center, they call for a substantially lower spine even without doing much to build out the strike plate. That allows you to use substantially lower spine and lighter-weight shafting.

Now, I realize that for a lot of people there's just no substitute for the heft of a 10 or 11 (or more) GPP arrow, but if you draw about #50 and you want to shoot wood shafts (or Alumalogs), you might just find that you can get a faster arrow out of a bow with a lot less center- shot.

Why not just build out the strike plate on the Hunter. Then you can shoot the same lighter spine, lighter wt arrows.

MP

My (real) longbows have all been slow as molasses. I loved them anyway :)

Mark - entirely valid point.

But why would you build out the strike plate on a recurve by a quarter inch when you could just slip a paper matchstick under a thin piece of leather on your longbow?

I'm beginning to believe that a fast longbow is the best of all possible worlds as a hunting weapon. Plenty of Oomph; quieter than a recurve; and generally speaking a whole lot more pleasant to carry all day long…

There is something about an RER Vortex that makes it a fast shooting bow. Might be the riser length or something.

So use the same arrows on your recurve that you use on your longbow. Tune the recurve my adding layers of moleskin on top of the side plate on the recurve till the longbow arrows fly perfect. Then remove the stack of moleskin and cut a sliver out of your stack of moleskin and put that sliver under the recurve strike plate and both bows will shoot the same arrows. Instead of tuning arrows till they are the exact spine your bow needs, tune your bow to need the exact spine you got. My bows shoot perfectly and I've never tuned an arrow in my life. From the onset of tuning to get good flight up to and including the 60's 70's and most of the 80's no one would have even considered cutting or front loading an arrow to make it work when you can get the right shaft and tune all your bows to shoot it.

With the B50 string on a recurve you can go lower than what most guys go with carbons gpp wise. Like GLF said if it acts underspined, tune the bow and keep the arrow the same. If a fast 8 grain per pound arrow flies through a deer, you will not be gaining anything by shooting a heavier different arrow out of the other bow. It is good to "know" your arrow, and not so hard to make minor adjustments from bow to bow when shooting them.

GLF hit the nail on the head.

Your problem is that you are using Stu's calculator. It is pretty much garbage. Sorry I know, i know it is a starting point, it gets people close. BS, if you do everything right it still has people over spined every time. Shawn

Tune the bow,yeah, compound users always do that.

And before carbons stickbow shooters always did that,lol.

Wow, now tuning is a compound thing too. That's hilarious. Guess I need to go back to mid 60's and tell those guys they had to wait on compounds before learning to tune.

GF, you can get stiffer aluminum arrows without going up in weight. You go to wider shafts with thinner walls. 1916 to 2013, 2016 to 2113. The beauty of aluminum is you can have just about any weight range for about any spine, FF or no. Fastflight adds a spine for me, but I can make that either heavier or lighter...my choice by choosing the myriad spines capable of aluminum shafting.

Ex: 2016=306 grains...29"...S.spine .525

2113=270 grains...29"...S.spine .550

2114=286 grains...29"...S.spine .500

What George and GLF said. Increased spine is not indicative of increased physical weight (regardless of shaft material selection).

I've yet to see a manufacturer's spine chart that was far enough off in spine (if at all) that 90% of the shooters in the world could tell.

Why on earth we continue to make spine and arrow flight such a complicated subject is just amazing to me.

But, to answer the original question.

No, there is no documented information to indicate that longbows are actually faster than recurves that I have ever seen. Not when shooting the same weight perpound arrow, at the same draw weight and draw length.

And the same goes for wooden arrows, there are lighter and heavier weights in the same spine. I wish you guys would put some thought into your posts before posting,.

Bob

You want faster go to the compound, I'll take a good performing, quiet longbow or recurve any day, doesn't matter as long as they a joy to shoot; just IMO.

More than speed, I'm interested in arc of trajectory with my 320gr trads past 30 yds... since my LBs and my Groves shoot fairly flat to that distance.

GF, you obviously have not owned a whole lot of bows. Their are some recurves that weigh less then most longbows and a recurve can be made very quiet. The problem is some of the longbows designed for speed are also harder to shoot and unstable. OL's bows and even the new ACS bows to a point are very critical of release, yet they are smoking fast. Speed is way over rated. I would rather hunt with a bow doing 150 fps.and whisper quiet then one doing 210 and a bit noisy. Trad bows may shoot flat til 20 yards or so but get to 25 and beyond not so much. Shawn

Damn chronographs. I picked up a used string follow Big 5. It did not like the arrows spines that I like to use at my draw. I gave it to a friend. He killed a buck every year for four years straight with it. A local guy bought a chrono and we all went to shoot through it. His was the slowest bow in the group and he felt bad about it, until I reminded him of four pass throughs in four years. He went to lighter wood arrows, they picked out some lighter for the spine arrow shafts for him, with a lighter broadhead, then he got his speed up. He still is having excellent success, that digital number readout made him do it.

OK, I'll fess up… The original post was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek ;)

But I'll take the opportunity to explain myself a little bit…

I think it's pretty straightforward… I've noticed that a difference of as little as about an inch in length can cause me to shoot a good 6 inches high at about 50 feet. So that is certainly part of a strong case for coming up with one arrow that you can shoot out of every bow that you own.

But on the other hand… The issue that I'm running into here is simply that I would like to standardize my velocity for all of my bows so that I don't have to make much of a mental adjustment when switching from one to the next. I realize that the calculator is probably overestimating the velocities (which would jive with Scooby's observation that it tends to leave people overspined) but I'm willing to live with that, provided that the actual velocities are all similar.

And interestingly enough, it looks like the bows that I have should be pretty happy with 3 sizes of aluminum - 2016, 1916 and 1816. Or I can go with .013 wall thickness and pick up a nice chunk of speed… The thing about the XX16's is that their weight is similar to that of wood, and of course there's the durability factor...

OK, I'll fess up… The original post was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek ;)

But I'll take the opportunity to explain myself a little bit…

I think it's pretty straightforward… I've noticed that a difference of as little as about an inch in length can cause me to shoot a good 6 inches high at about 50 feet. So that is certainly part of a strong case for coming up with one arrow that you can shoot out of every bow that you own.

But on the other hand… The issue that I'm running into here is simply that I would like to standardize my velocity for all of my bows so that I don't have to make much of a mental adjustment when switching from one to the next. I realize that the calculator is probably overestimating the velocities (which would jive with Scooby's observation that it tends to leave people overspined) but I'm willing to live with that, provided that the actual velocities are all similar.

And interestingly enough, it looks like the bows that I have should be pretty happy with 3 sizes of aluminum - 2016, 1916 and 1816. Or I can go with .013 wall thickness and pick up a nice chunk of speed… The thing about the XX16's is that their weight is similar to that of wood, and of course there's the durability factor...

It's in really rough shape… One of the tip overlays is missing altogether and the other looks like it could go at any time... this is the "good" one.

And I'm pretty sure that one of the lambs is twisted.

Looks like an attic bow that was dehydrated over the years. May be okay other than overlays.

Anyway, shooting your bows will acclimate you to them, regardless of speed. And, if you use the gpp idea, you won't be that far off anyway and you will adapt with practice. The design difference between a recurve and a longbow can be more problematic than weight differences.

Spend some time with your bows and get to know them and how they perform as they are. You likely won't have much trouble adjusting and being able to shoot them all pretty well with a little time and familiarity.

For a while there, short-longbows, like the ACS actually were fast, they just weren't longbows. I thought that was where this was heading. With the popularity of ILF, the ACSnics have moved back to recurves since those factories are better exploiting materials technology.

The idea that longbows are faster than other bows because the center cut is less than on recurves, overlooks the fact that that doesn't have anything to do with what makes a longbow a longbow. But more to the point is suggests that lightly spines arrows are of necessity light, which they do have a greater potential towards being.

Alternatively, one can leave off the leather strike plate, as Nate Steen does, and use thicker walled, narrow heavy arrows.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here